"New Research Shows That T-Rex Was as Smart as a Chimp"

[Simon]

EXCERPT: 

"The Tyrannosaurus rex is, without a doubt, the greatest predator to have walked this Earth. As an adult it was an efficient killing machine, with eyes as big as grapefruits and teeth the size of railway spikes that could crush clean through the bones of its prey.

The T. rex has an enormous reputation, but it's never been known for its intelligence. The standard line for most of paleontological history has been that dinosaurs were unevolved, and frankly, rather dumb.

But in the book The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs: A New History of a Lost World, University of Edinburgh paleontologist Steve Brusatte suggests that T. Rex was much more than a giant brute—it was social, and likely very smart, as smart as humans' closest genetic cousins, chimpanzees."

Full Story link:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/t-rex-was-smarter-than-we-thought

[Simon]

The Book: https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062490421/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-dinosaurs#

[Neosodon]

Interesting, but I'm a bit skeptical. Last I heard T. rex wasn't much smarter than an alligator.

[Minmiminime]

I'm looking forward to reading this. I heard the author say as much, and thought he was maybe joking! I very much doubt that dinosaurs were as stupid as they're still considered to be, but as smart as a chimp? I'd heard a comparison with domestic cats before and thought that was possibly pushing it, so, given the reputation and skills of the author of this book I'm interested to hear his explanation for this conjecture!

[Papi-Anon]

Interesting, but I'm a bit skeptical. Last I heard T. rex wasn't much smarter than an alligator.

Aren't crocodilians the only reptiles with a cerebral cortex? Crocs and gators today have recently been determined to be rather intelligent for reptiles though still behind most birds and mammals. Captive crocs have been taught simple commands like 'stay' and 'come' along with recognizing their name given to them by handlers.

Still, I think Rex was likely more tolerant of its own kind a bit more than modern crocs. Nothing in terms of pack-hunting, but perhaps better socializing beyond mating and child rearing. Rex was comparatively more birdlike cladistically than Allosaurus, so it makes sense if it was smarter.

[Moodyraptor]

To be honest, I don't understand how intelligence can possibly be determined by fossil evidence.  It's hard enough to quantify intelligence in extant creatures, let alone extinct ones.

[Ravonium]

While T. rex may not have been as stupid as often made out to be, I am highly skeptical that it was as smart as a chimpanzee.

[Papi-Anon]

To be honest, I don't understand how intelligence can possibly be determined by fossil evidence.  It's hard enough to quantify intelligence in extant creatures, let alone extinct ones.

Well, in quantifying intelligence there are trends intelligent animals seem to follow in anatomy. More intelligent animals tend have a higher encephalization than required for their body mass, with humans having the highest encephalization ratio I believe (or is it quotient that is the determiner?). Anyways, with fossils you can have endocasts, fossilization of the negative space of the cranium to get an idea of the maximum size of the brain, and in one case we've had a dinosaur's actual brain material fossilized (partially anyways). With all that, if you can get a ballpark estimate of the body mass and run that through the necessary equations with the estimated brain mass you get a high-estimated encephalization ratio or quotient and can see where it measures up to contemporary animals. However, I'm reminded of the coelocanth having a brain case that is like 90% fat and the remaining 10% is the tiny brain that barely grows during its life, so who's to say we didn't have a few tetrapods that were litterally 'fatheads'?

[The Atroxious]

Well, in quantifying intelligence there are trends intelligent animals seem to follow in anatomy. More intelligent animals tend have a higher encephalization than required for their body mass, with humans having the highest encephalization ratio I believe (or is it quotient that is the determiner?). Anyways, with fossils you can have endocasts, fossilization of the negative space of the cranium to get an idea of the maximum size of the brain, and in one case we've had a dinosaur's actual brain material fossilized (partially anyways). With all that, if you can get a ballpark estimate of the body mass and run that through the necessary equations with the estimated brain mass you get a high-estimated encephalization ratio or quotient and can see where it measures up to contemporary animals. However, I'm reminded of the coelocanth having a brain case that is like 90% fat and the remaining 10% is the tiny brain that barely grows during its life, so who's to say we didn't have a few tetrapods that were litterally 'fatheads'?

Well, there is a tetrapod, the koala, that has a tiny brain that floats in an unusually high volume of cerebrospinal fluid. As I read, a bit less than 40% of the koala's braincase is taken up by this fluid. So, yes, it very much can and does happen, albeit not always with fat.

I'm also inclined to be skeptical of this mostly because of the whole issue of the confirmation bias. People for some reason are so obsessed with portraying Tyrannosaurus as the greatest lifeform to ever exist, that I find it harder and harder to take all these claims about how Tyrannosaurus was so perfect that it was the real life Mary-Sue of the animal kingdom seriously.

[tanystropheus]

Well, in quantifying intelligence there are trends intelligent animals seem to follow in anatomy. More intelligent animals tend have a higher encephalization than required for their body mass, with humans having the highest encephalization ratio I believe (or is it quotient that is the determiner?). Anyways, with fossils you can have endocasts, fossilization of the negative space of the cranium to get an idea of the maximum size of the brain, and in one case we've had a dinosaur's actual brain material fossilized (partially anyways). With all that, if you can get a ballpark estimate of the body mass and run that through the necessary equations with the estimated brain mass you get a high-estimated encephalization ratio or quotient and can see where it measures up to contemporary animals. However, I'm reminded of the coelocanth having a brain case that is like 90% fat and the remaining 10% is the tiny brain that barely grows during its life, so who's to say we didn't have a few tetrapods that were litterally 'fatheads'?

Well, there is a tetrapod, the koala, that has a tiny brain that floats in an unusually high volume of cerebrospinal fluid. As I read, a bit less than 40% of the koala's braincase is taken up by this fluid. So, yes, it very much can and does happen, albeit not always with fat.

Interesting. One of my friends was trying to convince me that a Koala is basically an automaton. After reviewing dozens of videos of Koala behavior, I saw evidence of improvised non-mechanistic actions.

[HD-man]

To any dino experts who have read Brusatte 2018: Is this hypothesis actually in the book? If so, what exactly is it based on? The article only says EQ, which isn't enough to explain it, especially given what I've read about the T.rex telencephalon (See page 122: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.583.8968&rep=rep1&type=pdf ).

[Mini Minmi]

H @HD-man This is an old post and I am far from being a dino expert, however I remembered your question as I was reading the book. No, Brusatte doesn't really explain what he's basing this comparison between t.rex and chimps on, other than saying the brain volume vs body volume is in a similar proportion (which I find hard to believe in itself but I have not researched it further myself so maybe). As Papi-Anon pointed out, this is not a precise measurement because we can't know how much of the brain cavity of t.rex was really filled with brains. So yeah, I am left sceptical of that statement that t.rex would be as clever as a chimp.

I wonder what the ration brain/body is for crows... Or octopus for that matter. They've shown some serious intelligence to solve complex puzzles, use tools, or even learn through observation (by opposition to trial and error, octopus can learn how to solve a puzzle just by looking at another octopus solving the same puzzle). Brain/body ratio might not be the best way to analyze intelligence. I guess it also depends on how you define intelligence.

[Papi-Anon]

H @HD-man This is an old post and I am far from being a dino expert, however I remembered your question as I was reading the book. No, Brusatte doesn't really explain what he's basing this comparison between t.rex and chimps on, other than saying the brain volume vs body volume is in a similar proportion (which I find hard to believe in itself but I have not researched it further myself so maybe). As Papi-Anon pointed out, this is not a precise measurement because we can't know how much of the brain cavity of t.rex was really filled with brains. So yeah, I am left sceptical of that statement that t.rex would be as clever as a chimp.

I wonder what the ration brain/body is for crows... Or octopus for that matter. They've shown some serious intelligence to solve complex puzzles, use tools, or even learn through observation (by opposition to trial and error, octopus can learn how to solve a puzzle just by looking at another octopus solving the same puzzle). Brain/body ratio might not be the best way to analyze intelligence. I guess it also depends on how you define intelligence.

I recall that crows have an EQ (encephalization quotient) close to modern chimps, and crows do exhibit a high degree of adaptive learning along with being able to comprehend the concept of time to an extent. But Rex couldn't have been at crow-level EQ even if 100% of the braincase was filled up with the brain, because Rex's brain case volume was tremendously smaller in ratio to even the most conservative body-mass estimates (hell, even a 'shrink-wrapped' Rex would still be a ways from the crow EQ).

Though in light of recent findings of crocodilians intelligence, it's not too much of a stretch to believe that Rex and even more reptilian-brained theropods like the Allosauroids were at least as smart as modern-day crocodilians, possessing at least a primitive cerebral cortex like the modern crocs do. Even monitor lizards are rather bright for reptiles.

But to be fair, arguably the 'dumbest' ambiote alive today is a dinosaur we Americans feast upon during Thanksgiving and Christmas...

[Gwangi]

But to be fair, arguably the 'dumbest' ambiote alive today is a dinosaur we Americans feast upon during Thanksgiving and Christmas...

Arguable indeed, wild turkeys are far more intelligent than their domestic counterparts. I suggest reading "Illumination in the Flatwoods" or at least reading it's documentary counterpart "My Life as a Turkey".

[HD-man]

H @HD-man This is an old post and I am far from being a dino expert, however I remembered your question as I was reading the book. No, Brusatte doesn't really explain what he's basing this comparison between t.rex and chimps on, other than saying the brain volume vs body volume is in a similar proportion (which I find hard to believe in itself but I have not researched it further myself so maybe).

Expert or not, I appreciate you getting back to me about Brusatte's explanation (or lack thereof). Makes me wonder what would be the EQ of a T.rex w/a 100% filled braincase. In any case, as indicated by my previous post, telencephalon:brain ratios are a MUCH better measure of intelligence than brain:body ratios.

But to be fair, arguably the 'dumbest' ambiote alive today is a dinosaur we Americans feast upon during Thanksgiving and Christmas...

Arguable indeed, wild turkeys are far more intelligent than their domestic counterparts. I suggest reading "Illumination in the Flatwoods" or at least reading it's documentary counterpart "My Life as a Turkey".

To add to what Gwangi said, their domestic counterparts aren't dumb either. In fact, if they're anything like chickens, they 1) "probably fall about mid-range on the intelligence scale of birds" ( https://books.google.com/books?id=Ct4-qGkuC-kC&pg=PA34&dq=%22fall+about+mid-+range%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw-cjpgOvOAhXKJx4KHS2lCx4Q6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=%22fall%20about%20mid-%20range%22&f=false ), & 2) "have cognitive capacities that are beyond those of both dogs and cats" ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-friedrich/if-you-wouldnt-eat-a-dog-_b_698286.html ).

[Simon]

I think that we can all agree that the claim that is the title of this thread was probably meant to be more provocative than accurate (though we'll never know the truth behind it).  TRex was certainly more intelligent than its prey, in the same way that a lion is more intelligent than a wildebeast.  Now if they want to say that a Troodon was closer to a primate's level of brainpower, I'd give that a listen.

But (as has been pointed out before), the principle of survival of the fittest doesn't really select for brains over brawn as a general rule ... if you have the instinctive traits to survive and pass on your genes, that's sufficient for it ... we're basically evolutionary freaks ...

[John]

The headline "as smart as a chimp" almost looks like an insult!

[Huskies]

To be honest, I don't understand how intelligence can possibly be determined by fossil evidence.  It's hard enough to quantify intelligence in extant creatures, let alone extinct ones.

Well, in quantifying intelligence there are trends intelligent animals seem to follow in anatomy. More intelligent animals tend have a higher encephalization than required for their body mass, with humans having the highest encephalization ratio I believe (or is it quotient that is the determiner?). Anyways, with fossils you can have endocasts, fossilization of the negative space of the cranium to get an idea of the maximum size of the brain, and in one case we've had a dinosaur's actual brain material fossilized (partially anyways). With all that, if you can get a ballpark estimate of the body mass and run that through the necessary equations with the estimated brain mass you get a high-estimated encephalization ratio or quotient and can see where it measures up to contemporary animals. However, I'm reminded of the coelocanth having a brain case that is like 90% fat and the remaining 10% is the tiny brain that barely grows during its life, so who's to say we didn't have a few tetrapods that were litterally 'fatheads'?

What do we define as intelligent/ smart? Crows are very smart, same with dolphins, killer whales, and other animals. they know how to survive. The only species that baffles me is human. By our accomplishment, we should be very smart but how many time we do stupid things that ends very badly, and they all start with the same sentence "Hold my beer and watch this" If we never learned, then are we smart or God just made a mistake? Lol

[Papi-Anon]

What do we define as intelligent/ smart? Crows are very smart, same with dolphins, killer whales, and other animals. they know how to survive. The only species that baffles me is human. By our accomplishment, we should be very smart but how many time we do stupid things that ends very badly, and they all start with the same sentence "Hold my beer and watch this" If we never learned, then are we smart or God just made a mistake? Lol

I blame environment on that. Many humans who do stupid things (including Darwin Award winners) seem to come from updringings that aren't typical of other organisms; that is, being taught survival exclusively like animals learn in the wild. If that was all we thought about we'd probably be less self-destructive as a species, but then again we wouldn't be chatting on the internet if that happened, now would we? Probably wouldn't even have fire at that.

[Neosodon]

What do we define as intelligent/ smart? Crows are very smart, same with dolphins, killer whales, and other animals. they know how to survive. The only species that baffles me is human. By our accomplishment, we should be very smart but how many time we do stupid things that ends very badly, and they all start with the same sentence "Hold my beer and watch this" If we never learned, then are we smart or God just made a mistake? Lol

I blame environment on that. Many humans who do stupid things (including Darwin Award winners) seem to come from updringings that aren't typical of other organisms; that is, being taught survival exclusively like animals learn in the wild. If that was all we thought about we'd probably be less self-destructive as a species, but then again we wouldn't be chatting on the internet if that happened, now would we? Probably wouldn't even have fire at that.

I don't think humans are really that much dumber than other animals when it comes to stupid reckless self harmful behavior. It's just that we have not had time to evolve to our new life styles. If cars were around 50,000 years ago we probably would have evolved to be safer drivers. The same is true with other animals. Deer seem stupid for running out in front of cars. But given enough time natural selection will favor the deer that better know how to cross the road.